|Home » Industry Watch (» The Technological » Hall of Monkeys » Heroes Banquet) » JA/WL
Assange at the Supreme Court: Day One
A rout in theory.
LONDON (Rixstep) — Julian Assange's 'silk' Dinah Rose QC shone. Sweden's 'Monty' seemed ill prepared and got shot down on several occasions by the seven judges. Yet it remains to be seen if even an obvious argument will be enough to get the brave court to defy the wishes of the US and the forces for the status quo in the EU.
Jen-Rob was there, taking notes on her Mac laptop at a feverish pace. Beside her sat Amal from Geoffrey Robertson's Doughty Street Chambers. Julian sat with his famous solicitor Gareth Peirce.
Clare Montgomery sat on the other side, a barrister known best for successfully fighting the extradition of Augusto Pinochet, now representing Marianne Ny. The message couldn't have been clearer.
But will it be enough?
The hearings conclude tomorrow.
Dinah was nothing short of brilliant as she led the court and the online viewers through an history of extradition agreements and their proposals all the way back to the 1950s. She was so brilliant that she turned the erstwhile dry topic into something close to a suspense thriller.
She showed how early drafts of the framework met resistance because they did not stress that such measures must be limited to 'independent judicial authorities'. She ended by reading the final version of the EAW framework and driving her point home - something many a viewer probably presumed was bleating obvious. But the 'star of the bar' left nothing to chance.
And her courtroom demeanour and overall presentation were astonishing to watch. For most viewers, it was inconceivable that someone could have been as well prepared as she. And yet there it was.
'The situation is unsatisfactory', she summarised in what may be the understatement of the Millennium.